Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandla (app)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandla (app)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has 10 references - but they are all unsuitable for one reason or another. Cites 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 publish Native advertising. Cites 3, 5, 9 and 10 are press release reposts. Cite 7 is the college newspaper of the school the founder attends. None of these are the independent sources required to demonstrate notability. I believe that this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a personal vendetta against the article since your speedy deletion request was shut down. 1 and 2 don't have any connection to the founder and they are Notable publications in Nigeria. In fact one of the sources is criticizing the app for not including the Hausa language in its launch. Claiming it is a sponsored article is baseless. You also have a history of overzealous deletion on your talk page. 65sugg (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A declined CSD tag often means the article is better discussed at AfD. It's not necessarily a determination on whether the article should be kept or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT

"If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered." 65sugg (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @MrOllie: would you mind elaborating on how the TechCabal source uses native advertising? From what I can see from TechCabal's advertising packages, sponsored content appears clearly marked as such, and the only discussion on RSN that I could find doesn't mention this. Legit.ng absolutely employs native advertising, but I'm wondering how you figured out that TechCabal does too. - Aoidh (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the question raised by Aoidh is valid, but the latest advertising package does include the sentence The TechCabal content marketing team is able to work with clients to put out feature and review articles. The page author has also written press-release-like posts in the past, so I believe this is not close to meeting WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On that PDF and in the examples given in the PDF, pages delivered via that route are clearly marked as "Partner" links, something not present in the source in this article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still. It is borderline reliable and it sounds like a press release. Duck test applies. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"borderline reliable" WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT . There's no evidence to support the claim that it is a press release or that the article on legit.ng is a press release given the fact that it literally criticizes the app 65sugg (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the TechCabal reference is legit barring evidence to the contrary. That being said, if TechCabal is a reliable source in this instance, it is the only one, and I looked for more and came up with nothing. There's a lot of press releases and articles based on press releases, but they're easy to spot because they're all worded the same. Articles require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this article's subject maybe has the one. Because of that, the article fails WP:GNG, and meets none of the criteria of WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.